linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] AFS: Fix file locking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070717175017.8b8a8976.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:50:17 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AFS: Fix file locking

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:47:32 +0100
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> +	if (type == AFS_LOCK_READ &&
> +	    vnode->flags & (1 << AFS_VNODE_READLOCKED)) {

Here we use

	vnode->flags & (1 << foo)

> +		set_bit(AFS_VNODE_LOCKING, &vnode->flags);

and elsewhere we use set_bit(foo, &vnode->flags) and clear_bit()

This is a bit strange.  Does the open-coded bit-test have any performance
benefit on any architecture?  Not on x86 at least, afaik.

Please consider converting all that stuff to test_bit() sometime.  It sure
would look a lot better.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/